There is only one issue you should focus on in the November elections – Flood Control and abatement. Everything we review at TCR will be through that lens. Nothing else matters in the fall of 2017 for our region.

City Of Houston Bonds/Propositions

The City of Houston has five propositions: A, B, C, D, and E, all bond issues totaling $1.495 billion dollars. These bonds ALL require levying of taxes to pay for them.

The problems with these propositions are multi-fold:

(1) The recently adopted 2017 budget had a projected deficit of $160 million and it was closed by diversion of pension payments, layoffs and by one-time fixes.

(2) The proposed bonds will cost the city about $75 million a year to payoff principle and interest, and the city has no plan of how to pay them off without a tax increase. See below for the language for the bonds:

(3) Finally and most critically, the bonds are spending the grand total of ZERO on flood remediation and control, which is by far the most critical issue facing the city.

TCR says vote “No” on all Houston propositions instructing our city officials to go back to the drawing board and reprioritize their efforts. In addition, the pension bailout will not solve the city’s long-term problem of underpaying and overpromising pensions. Essentially, for years the city has used the pension funds payable as a slush fund for illegal deficit spending.

TCR received an email from a lifelong liberal Democrat, who lost his house in Harvey, on the Houston pension bonds:

“There is a wide consensus amongst national claimant’s lawyers that underfunded municipal and local government unit pension systems are in dire condition.”

“Regrettably, Mayor Sylvester Turner’s proposal, while well intentioned, is simply a thin band-aid. There are mechanisms to remedy the financial instability, but it’s tough without going to bankruptcy court. They City’s pension funds have been actuarially unsound for a very long time. No pensioner wants to give up any portion of his or her pension. The deferred pension component is a culprit that defies logic and in the end will be the terminus of the fund without court intervention to restructure the funding and ignores “the greatest good for the majority of pensioners.”